Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interest on refunds

Legal area

Court

1 Sept 2021

AMPLE SUN LTD v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1025
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA42/2013

Applying the binding authority in Nomura and the statutory scheme in s14 SDO, the court held that reducing the Collector's costs to compensate appellants for the lack of refund would amount to an impermissible award of interest; appellants failed to show conduct justifying departure from the general rule that costs follow the event and could have used s14(1A) security to protect themselves, therefore no reduction in costs was ordered.
1 Sept 2021

DANIX LTD v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1025
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA44/2013

Costs were ordered for the Collector because reducing costs to compensate appellants for non-refund would amount to an impermissible award of interest contrary to binding Court of Appeal authority (Nomura), there was no causal link between the Collector's conduct and additional costs, and appellants could have protected themselves under s14(1A) SDO by providing interest-bearing security.
1 Sept 2021

LAND CONCEPT LTD v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1025
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA111/2016

No reduction of the Collector's costs was ordered; awarding a costs reduction to compensate appellants for delayed refunds would amount to awarding interest by another name and conflict with the binding Court of Appeal decision in Nomura; appellants chose to pay duties rather than lodge interest‑bearing security under s14(1A) and thus cannot shift that loss to the Collector; accordingly costs follow the event and appellants must pay the Collector's costs, to be taxed if not agreed.
1 Sept 2021

GENIUS EXPRESS LTD v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1025
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA43/2013

Costs will not be reduced because doing so would effectively award interest on refunds contrary to the binding Court of Appeal decision in Nomura; the lack of refund does not demonstrate conduct amounting to exaggeration or cause additional costs; appellants could have used s14(1A) security but chose to pay, so costs follow the event and appellants must pay the Collector's costs.
1 Sept 2021

LAND CONCEPT LTD v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1025
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA9/2012

The court refused to reduce the Collector’s recoverable costs because doing so would amount in substance to awarding interest on refunds contrary to the binding decision in Nomura; the failure to refund before hearing did not exacerbate the Collector’s conduct or increase costs and appellants could have protected their position under SDO s14(1A); accordingly costs follow the event and appellants must pay the Collector’s costs to be taxed if not agreed.
9 Apr 2015

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA367/2004

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
9 Apr 2015

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA369/2004

Leave to appeal refused on the proposed grounds (insufficient reasonable prospects); tribunal held ss 8 and 8A address distinct matters so contested installations fall within s 8A; DCSs were rightly found rateable but exclusion from asset split register meant no effect on 2004/05 assessment; Black Point deferral premium was a one-off item funded from a Development Fund and not deductible as an HT expense for 2004/05; asset-split global approach to divide the divisible balance was a permissible valuation methodology and no appealable error shown; costs order nisi varied — costs relating to CLP…
9 Apr 2015

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA366/2004

The tribunal held as a matter of law and fact that (1) ss 8 and 8A address different subject matters so items falling within s8A(3) are rateable plant and are not re-characterised as non-rateable machinery under s8(b); (2) the DCS issue was not a live ground for leave because CLP succeeded overall on that issue and paramountcy is a question of fact; (3) the Black Point deferral premium was a one-off previously funded item not to be treated as an HT expense for 2004/05 under the valuation reality assumptions; (4) the tribunal's asset-split global approach adequately accounted for interest, rew…
9 Apr 2015

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDGA241/2004

Leave to appeal was refused because the contested points were either matters of fact/valuation not raising arguable points of law or had no reasonable prospect of success; tribunal's costs order nisi was varied to disallow costs relating to CLP's Approach 2, disallow CB costs except those incorporated into Approach 1, disallow costs of Approach 3 and to exclude expert costs for other years; CLP's application for common fund taxation was dismissed; CLP ordered to pay CRV costs of the interest dispute and costs of these applications (order nisi) with certificate for two counsel.
3 Jan 2014

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA367/2004

The Tribunal held that interpolation from CLP's actual 2004 accounts to derive economic growth as at the AVD was impermissible hindsight and not preferred; it adopted Mr Davis' Original Method (using accounts to 31 Dec 2003 with per‑customer adjustment for physical growth to 1 Apr 2004) for R&E projections; HT AUC and CS remain in HT asset base while HL AUC/CS are excluded; wayleaves, pole sites and DCS need not be separately included in the HL asset base for asset split because their effect is captured in the DB; where capitalisation is required the decapitalisation rate adopted is 12.35%; C…